Order : This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 01(A) of 2013-D, including the order dated 24.2.2015 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offense punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. 3. An information was received by the CBI that the engineers as well as the finance managers of erstwhile Kustore Area, BCCL, Dhanbad during 2008-11 entered into an criminal conspiracy with Kumbh Nath Singh, Proprietor of M/s D.K. Dhanbad, and his brother L.B. Singh to do or cause to be done an illegal act with a view to cheat and defraud BCCL, Dhanbad whereby 16 numbers of work were allotted in favour of M/s D.K. Singh for construction of PCC Road, Drains, Boundary Wall, Pipeline etc. The contractor without completing the work raised bills which were paid to him in connivance with the BCCL officials and thereby they caused wrongful loss to BCCL to the tune of Rs. 1,23,13,354/-(approx). On the basis of said allegation, first information report was lodged which was investigated upon. 4. During investigation, it was found that the estimate of 16 works related to civil (capital nature) was prepared at the instance of the Area Civil Manager. After preparation of the estimate, it was forwarded by the Area Civil Manager to the Finance Manager/Area Finance Manager. The then Finance Manager of Kustore Area recommended for forwarding the file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan for budgetary allocation, which was to be routed through the petitioner, being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area. After preparation of the estimate, it was forwarded by the Area Civil Manager to the Finance Manager/Area Finance Manager. The then Finance Manager of Kustore Area recommended for forwarding the file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan for budgetary allocation, which was to be routed through the petitioner, being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area. Since the petitioner was not present, Area General Manager-Shri Jyotish Chandra forwarded this file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan so that it be placed before the Director for making budgetary allegation but the file was never placed before the Director, BCCL, Koyla Bhavan, rather it was dealt with by CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan whereby he sent the file to the petitioner endorsing therein that the budgetary allocation would be made after Tender Committee makes the recommendation and thereby the petitioner made endorsement to go for tender process though as per rule, first budget allocation is made and then tender is issued but the accused persons including the petitioner in connivance with each other without having budgetary allocation took steps for issuance of tender process and thereby it was alleged that the petitioner was also in connivance with the contractor who without executing the work took payments. 5. On such allegation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offences was taken against the accused persons including the petitioner which is under challenge. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is the case of the C.B.I. that in the month of September-October, 2008, the estimates for sixteen different civil works related to construction of Pipe Line, Boundary Wall, PCC Road and Drain etc. were prepared by the Civil Department of erstwhile Kustore Area of BCCL, Dhanbad. Those estimates were prepared at the instance of the Area Civil Manager. After preparation of the estimates, it were forwarded by the Area Civil Manager to the Finance Manager/Area Finance Manager. The then Finance Manager of Kustore Area recommended for forwarding the file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan for budgetary allocation, which was to be routed through the petitioner being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area. After preparation of the estimates, it were forwarded by the Area Civil Manager to the Finance Manager/Area Finance Manager. The then Finance Manager of Kustore Area recommended for forwarding the file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan for budgetary allocation, which was to be routed through the petitioner being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area. On the date when the file reached to the Office of the petitioner, the petitioner was not present and, therefore, the Area General Manager-Jyotish Chandra forwarded this file to CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan so that it be placed before the Director for making budgetary allocation but the file was never placed before the Director, BCCL, Koyla Bhavan, rather it was dealt with by CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan, whereby he sent back the file to the petitioner endorsing therein that the budgetary allocation would be made after the tender committee makes recommendation. On such endorsement, the petitioner did act whereby he passed an order for going for tender process. After that, the petitioner was transferred from there on 20.06.2009 and only thereafter, the tender was issued for which several persons participated and the Tender Committee found one M/s D.K. Singh as L-1 with respect to all 16 civil works to whom work order was issued, but as per the case of the prosecution, he, without completing the work, received payment in connivance with the officials of the BCCL. 7. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioner had no role to play in the matter of finalization of tender or making payment to him still he has been charge-sheeted for the reasons that the petitioner did pass order for going for the tender process without there being any approval of the Director of BCCL, which according to the case of the prosecution, was required to have. But it is evident that the petitioner acted upon on the order passed by the CME (P&P) and if the petitioner acted upon, as per the endorsement made by the CME (P&P), he did not commit any wrong still the petitioner is being prosecuted by putting a case of conspiracy, whereas no act is there on the part of the petitioner so as to form an opinion that the petitioner had hatched conspiracy with the contractor or any other officials of BCCL whereas the petitioner before the tender was finalized and the work order was issued, had been transferred to the other office and in that event, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conspiracy with the accused persons. 8. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao { (2012) 9 SCC 512 }. 9. Further, it was submitted that even if the petitioner did deviate from the established norm in putting order for going for tender without budgetary allocation, he cannot be said to have had dishonest intention, as he was not knowing that the work order would be awarded to that particular contractor and in that event, any prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act would be quite illegal. 10. In support of the submission, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of C. Chenga Reddy and others Vs. State of A. P. { (1996) 10 SCC 193 }. 11. Further submission, which was advanced, is that for prosecuting a person under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary that the act must have been done illegally abusing his position as public servant for obtaining benefit pecuniary or otherwise for himself or for someone else provided he does a conscious act to get the required result of pecuniary advantage or to obtain any valuable thing even if the act is for someone else, but here since the petitioner was not knowing as to whom the work would be awarded, any deviation from the settled procedure would never lead to presumption that there was dishonest act on the part of the petitioner and if it is so, no offence is made out under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. 12. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in a case of R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala { (2003) 9 SCC 700 }. 13. As against this, Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, submits that the petitioner being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area, BCCL, Dhanbad during 2008-11, was responsible for ensuring adherence to the procedure laid down by BCCL/CIL for civil contract work in BCCL. He being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area did not point out that the work got started without the same being approved as capitalist and that no approval of Area General Manager was taken before preparation of the estimates. The petitioner in league with the other officials of BCCL allowed the Area General Manager-Jyotish Chandra to forward the file to the Head Quarter, BCCCL through CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan for budgetary allocation. He being the Area General Manager did not point out that all the works required approval either of the concerned Director or of the BCCL-Board. The petitioner was fully knowing that CME (P&P), Koyla Bhavan did not have separate power for granting approval still it was considered by the petitioner as approved by the BCCL and thereby the petitioner without there being any approval of the competent authority passed order for going for tender process and in these circumstances, it is quite evident that the petitioner was in league of the other officials of BCCL and hence the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offences which never warrants to be interfered with. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that the simple allegation, on which the petitioner is being prosecuted, is that the petitioner being the Chief General Manager of Kustore Area, BCCL, Dhanbad without having budgetary allocation from the Director did pass order for going for tender process. 15. The question does arise as to whether this allegation constitutes any offence either under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 16. 15. The question does arise as to whether this allegation constitutes any offence either under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 16. It be stated that after the petitioner passed an order for going for tender process got transferred and only thereafter M/s D.K. Singh was found as L-1 in the tender process and the work order was issued who without executing the work submitted the bills on the basis of which payments were made. Thus, it is evident that when the petitioner did pass order, he was not knowing that the work would be awarded to M/s D.K. Singh. In such event, how the petitioner can be said to have conspired with the other accused including the contractor. 17. Ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. 18. The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra). 19. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. 18. The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra). 19. Coming to the facts of the case, it be reiterated that when the petitioner did pass order which, according to the case of the CBI, was against the settled norms but at that time the contractor to whom work was awarded was not in picture at all. In that event, it can never be said that the petitioner did commit an act in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. 20. Going further in the matter, it be stated that for constituting offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is necessary that the act must have been done illegally abusing his position as a public servant for obtaining benefit, pecuniary or otherwise for himself or for someone else. This is an offence which would require an intention to accompany the act. The element of mental state would be necessary to do a conscious act to get the required result of pecuniary advantage or to obtain any valuable thing even if the act is for someone else. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala (supra). 21. Coming again to the fact of the case, it be stated that when at the time of passing order for going for tender, it was never known to the petitioner that M/s D.K. Singh would be awarded work how the petitioner can be said to have intended to have pecuniary benefit for the said contractor when the contractor was never in picture at the time of passing order by the petitioner. 22. Under the circumstances, any prosecution of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances stated above, would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 23. Accordingly, the order dated 24.2.2015, including the entire criminal proceeding of R.C. Case No. 01(A) of 2013-D, taking cognizance against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 24. In the result, this application stands allowed.